4 ms·

Locking yourself up for fear of a <1% chance of dying is very much a choice.

Barrin92 6y ago
The chance of ending up in a hospital is much higher (about 15 times higher), and so are the chances for complications in general like loss of smell or neurological or heart/lung damage. And if you have pre-existing conditions (like a sizeable amount of people) those risks only go up. As can be seen in slumping economic stats many people are avoiding that risk which makes complete sense. It's absurd to frame this as a 'choice', it's a gigantic societal and civilisational failure to not be able to stop this disease. In particular in the US though framing collective failure of preventable harm as cost for freedom has become the norm. You can pick anything that doesn't work or that could have been prevented and within five seconds someone will tell you it's the price for freedom. I think the real explanation is much more sinister. As a society people have given up, so now every harm or burden is rationalised in this way.
azinman2 6y ago
That 1% depends on a wide variety of contexts. It isn’t 1% for everyone, 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems, and even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good. To do anything but protect yourself is fundamentally selfish.
- orangecat 6y ago
  It isn’t 1% for everyone True. If you're younger (really, under 60) and healthy it's much less than 1%. 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems Unclear if you mean 1/3 of all infections, which is far too high, or 1 to 3 percent, which is possibly reasonable, although again it's going to be skewed towards older and unhealthy people. even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good At some point people have to be responsible for themselves. If you're severely allergic to peanuts, then that's something that you have to watch out for; we don't ban peanuts for the general public. If you're at high risk for COVID then you should take appropriate precautions, but it's unreasonable to demand that everyone else be forbidden from seeing their friends and family for months or years.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    Any levels of fatality is relative to how overwhelmed the health care system is, and the access to care that people have. We’ve seen it as high as 15% already in some places. This is a GLOBAL pandemic; any spread within your community can eventually make it to the Amazon in Brazil where it’s ravishing local communities that don’t have access to modern hospitals. Your statement seems to emphasize that the focus should be on the youth, who are also dying of this disease. But the careless nature of dismissing the fatality rate of those over 60 or with co-morbidities is really unbelievable. So my parents, who are otherwise healthy and I expect to live for DECADES more should die now so you can go out and see your friends? Or those who are young with diabetes that might otherwise have an entire full life? The level of selfishness of such a statement is just off the charts. If you were to kill just ONE person and be caught you’d be in jail for many years, purposefully (murder) or by accident (manslaughter). Yet passing a disease that has brought the world to its knees around is somehow ok? When did those who get affected by your actions get to weight in and vote on this? Or do you feel you can just unilaterally decide that it’s fine for others to die _unnecessarily_? And for businesses to suffer because the disease keeps going and others DO care about their own safety and those around them? Furthermore, the CDC just acknowledged it may be as high as 1/3 of those recovered with persistent issues [1]. Even if it were 1-3%, why is that ok for that 1-3%? 1% of the global population is approximately 80 million people. How many of these would have solved climate change, found a cure for covid, or otherwise positively impacted the planet? That’s worth not just saying indoors collectively for a short period to prevent? It keeps going because people DON’T do what’s in the best interest for all of society, or even their future self. You’re basing your assumptions on an extremely short time span of data, but we know that many viruses can strike far later in life with devastating consequences, or a lifetime of flare ups. We simply don’t know, but Dr. Fauci has repeatedly warned people about such a possibility. How can you calculate such risks when they’re unknown? Peanuts are something that can be easily regulated and limited to those who are allergic. They pose no global threat, and don’t hop between people. Those allergic can also carry epipens. There is no epipen for covid (yet?). Until then we have an unusually highly contagious virus that spreads from a very high percentage of asymptotic carriers. Already in the US over 1/3 of Americans who died in WWII have died since March that largely wouldn’t have otherwise [2]. It’s July. Please reconsider your actions. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
- anoncake 6y ago
  > 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems Source? All I've seen so far has been anecdotal evidence.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm
    - anoncake 6y ago
      2-3 weeks is not even remotely persistent.
      - azinman2 6y ago
        That is the CDC’s survey. There’s plenty of data out there suggesting many people are experiencing more potentially permanent effects / damage.
        anoncake 6y ago
        That's a fine source if you want to prove that fully recovering from COVID often takes more than a few weeks. But that is not the question here. > There’s plenty of data out there suggesting many people are experiencing more potentially permanent effects / damage. Since you already know that data, would you please tell me where to find it?
        azinman2 6y ago
        https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-covid-related-symptoms-persist-recovery.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-covid-related-symptom... A Google search will yield many results. It’s not hard to find.
        anoncake 6y ago
m3kw9 6y ago
1% chance is for you. But if you are able to infect another person, that is no longer 1% as a whole.

The chance of ending up in a hospital is much higher (about 15 times higher), and so are the chances for complications in general like loss of smell or neurological or heart/lung damage. And if you have pre-existing conditions (like a sizeable amount of people) those risks only go up. As can be seen in slumping economic stats many people are avoiding that risk which makes complete sense. It's absurd to frame this as a 'choice', it's a gigantic societal and civilisational failure to not be able to stop this disease. In particular in the US though framing collective failure of preventable harm as cost for freedom has become the norm. You can pick anything that doesn't work or that could have been prevented and within five seconds someone will tell you it's the price for freedom. I think the real explanation is much more sinister. As a society people have given up, so now every harm or burden is rationalised in this way.

azinman2 6y ago

That 1% depends on a wide variety of contexts. It isn’t 1% for everyone, 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems, and even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good. To do anything but protect yourself is fundamentally selfish.

orangecat 6y ago
It isn’t 1% for everyone True. If you're younger (really, under 60) and healthy it's much less than 1%. 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems Unclear if you mean 1/3 of all infections, which is far too high, or 1 to 3 percent, which is possibly reasonable, although again it's going to be skewed towards older and unhealthy people. even if everything is fine with you, you can pass it to someone who passes it to someone who dies from your unwillingness to act for the greater good At some point people have to be responsible for themselves. If you're severely allergic to peanuts, then that's something that you have to watch out for; we don't ban peanuts for the general public. If you're at high risk for COVID then you should take appropriate precautions, but it's unreasonable to demand that everyone else be forbidden from seeing their friends and family for months or years.
- azinman2 6y ago
  Any levels of fatality is relative to how overwhelmed the health care system is, and the access to care that people have. We’ve seen it as high as 15% already in some places. This is a GLOBAL pandemic; any spread within your community can eventually make it to the Amazon in Brazil where it’s ravishing local communities that don’t have access to modern hospitals. Your statement seems to emphasize that the focus should be on the youth, who are also dying of this disease. But the careless nature of dismissing the fatality rate of those over 60 or with co-morbidities is really unbelievable. So my parents, who are otherwise healthy and I expect to live for DECADES more should die now so you can go out and see your friends? Or those who are young with diabetes that might otherwise have an entire full life? The level of selfishness of such a statement is just off the charts. If you were to kill just ONE person and be caught you’d be in jail for many years, purposefully (murder) or by accident (manslaughter). Yet passing a disease that has brought the world to its knees around is somehow ok? When did those who get affected by your actions get to weight in and vote on this? Or do you feel you can just unilaterally decide that it’s fine for others to die _unnecessarily_? And for businesses to suffer because the disease keeps going and others DO care about their own safety and those around them? Furthermore, the CDC just acknowledged it may be as high as 1/3 of those recovered with persistent issues [1]. Even if it were 1-3%, why is that ok for that 1-3%? 1% of the global population is approximately 80 million people. How many of these would have solved climate change, found a cure for covid, or otherwise positively impacted the planet? That’s worth not just saying indoors collectively for a short period to prevent? It keeps going because people DON’T do what’s in the best interest for all of society, or even their future self. You’re basing your assumptions on an extremely short time span of data, but we know that many viruses can strike far later in life with devastating consequences, or a lifetime of flare ups. We simply don’t know, but Dr. Fauci has repeatedly warned people about such a possibility. How can you calculate such risks when they’re unknown? Peanuts are something that can be easily regulated and limited to those who are allergic. They pose no global threat, and don’t hop between people. Those allergic can also carry epipens. There is no epipen for covid (yet?). Until then we have an unusually highly contagious virus that spreads from a very high percentage of asymptotic carriers. Already in the US over 1/3 of Americans who died in WWII have died since March that largely wouldn’t have otherwise [2]. It’s July. Please reconsider your actions. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm [2] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
anoncake 6y ago
> 1/3% of those who didn’t die seem to have debilitating persistent problems Source? All I've seen so far has been anecdotal evidence.
- azinman2 6y ago
  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6930e1.htm
  - anoncake 6y ago
    2-3 weeks is not even remotely persistent.
    - azinman2 6y ago
      That is the CDC’s survey. There’s plenty of data out there suggesting many people are experiencing more potentially permanent effects / damage.
      - anoncake 6y ago
        That's a fine source if you want to prove that fully recovering from COVID often takes more than a few weeks. But that is not the question here. > There’s plenty of data out there suggesting many people are experiencing more potentially permanent effects / damage. Since you already know that data, would you please tell me where to find it?
        azinman2 6y ago
        https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-covid-related-symptoms-persist-recovery.html https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-covid-related-symptom... A Google search will yield many results. It’s not hard to find.
        anoncake 6y ago

m3kw9 6y ago

1% chance is for you. But if you are able to infect another person, that is no longer 1% as a whole.